People do good because they are
human,
not because they are religious!

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!

THOMSON, A DEFENCE OF ABORTION

In 1971, Judith Jarvis Thomson wrote A Defense of Abortion. She believed that
the baby in the womb had a right to life. But she thought it was too simple to
conclude that this meant the mother didn’t have the right to abort the baby.

Does the baby deserve to live? The problem is the
baby deserves nothing for deserving implies you have used your ability to earn.
Even murderers have the right to life. But even those who think the death
penalty is wrong argue that they don't deserve to live. Does deserving to
live trump the right to live? Or vice versa? These are hard
questions.

Let us examine what Thomson wrote.

She argued that if you were kidnapped and plugged up to a violinist to keep him
alive for nine months so that both of you could be safely freed at the end of
the time then to get on with your lives, that you have the right to unplug
yourself from the violinist even if it means he will die as soon as you find
yourself tied up to him. From this she concluded that abortion is ethical
because the baby grows in the woman’s body and it is her body so she can have an
abortion if she wants to. Critics of the argument see abortion being a different
situation from the example she describes. But most of them concur that the
argument justifies abortion in the case of rape only and certainly when the
mother’s life is in danger from the pregnancy.

But it is clear it allows abortion when the woman has an intense wish to have an
abortion. Pregnancy is worse than being hooked up to the violinist. We must
conclude then that it must allow a lot more than abortion only for rape or to
save the mother from death. Also the less developed an embryo is the less
resemblance it has to the case of the violinist who is a grown-up. If it is
acceptable to cause the violinist’s death by extricating yourself from him how
much more is it acceptable to abort the embryo. There must be more cases in
which aborting the embryo is acceptable.

What if you are friends with a man and woman and you know the woman is going to
abort his baby without telling him? Should you tell him? To argue that you
should mind your own business and say nothing is to tacitly approve of Thomson's
argument. The woman's right to control her own body overrides any rights the man
has over the baby. The Catholic would argue that if telling may enable the man
to get a chance to talk her out of it then one should tell so that the life of
the baby might be saved.

There have been a number of challenges made to the argument that its a woman's
body and so she has the right to have the baby terminated. None of them can
manage to stand against the fact that the most important thing is a woman's
right to control her own body. The woman has complete ownership of her body. It
may be replied that if she has then she can cut off her legs to get disability
payments from the state if she wants. But if she does that she is not treating
herself as if she owns herself. She is treating herself as if she were nothing,
a thing not an owner.

Let us look at the objections to Thomson's reasoning.

First the Tacit Consent Objection. The woman has sex to get pregnant. She
tacitly consented to get pregnant so she will not have the right to have an
abortion

The objections to this are as follows:

* Tacit consent cannot be inferred where contraception was used or when the
woman thought she was safe.

* What if the woman had been drunk?

* Engaging in a voluntary action while foreseeing a certain result does not
entail that one has tacitly consented to that result.

* The woman then it seems just because it is her job to look after the child
seems to be bound to do so when it is in the room and after it is born. She must
do this because she tacitly consented to the conception. What about the man? The
woman has the right to refuse to let a father see his child. But this Tacit
Consent theory implies that by having sex the man gives his life to look after
the child forever. The argument is purely sexist for it ignores the man and
seeks to impose a duty on the woman.

* Even if the woman has tacitly consented to the fetus making demands on her
body, it does not follow that she has consented to sustain it for the entire
nine months of pregnancy. Why should tacit consent be final? People are allowed
to change their minds. People promise to get married when they are engaged and
things change and they can break the engagement without feeling bound to the
promise. Nobody says, "You vow yourself to a person for life when you are
engaged and to break the engagement is wrong unless you discover your partner
was never genuine".

* The consent argument would only help a person who believed in free will. Some
people don’t. Some believers in free will hold that the free will belief cannot
be forced on anybody and should not be. They would have to hold that abortion
should be permitted legally to allow people to make their own decisions.

* Consent is not more important than a person’s right to their own body. If you
consent to give a kidney to your friend you can change your mind even if they
will die after.

Second, the responsibility objection. The pregnant woman voluntarily engaged in
sexual intercourse with the result that the fetus stands in need of the use of
her body to survive. The woman is thus responsible for the fetus's need to use
her body and so the fetus has a right to use her body. No such responsibility
occurs with the violinist (or pregnancy due to rape).

The objection to this is as follows:

* The woman is responsible for the fetus existing, but as she could not have
caused the fetus to exist without it being dependent on her, she is in a
relevant sense not responsible for the fetus's need to use her body. She didn’t
make the rule that babies in the womb need the mother’s body.

Thomson raises the responsibility objection herself and concludes it is not
convincing.

First, she offers an argument that lends support to the view that abortion is
justified at least in the case of rape, the argument that we have seen that
involves the violinist scenario.

Second, she points out that one cannot drive a wedge between rape and other
cases simply by appealing to the fact that in other cases the woman is
responsible for there being a fetus that needs assistance, since the woman is
also to some extent responsible in cases of rape (e.g., she could get a
hysterectomy).

Therefore Thomson concludes that abortion is morally permissible in at least
some cases where intercourse is voluntary.

* When you get married you take on the responsibility for somebody else’s
happiness for life. But separation and divorce are allowed and indeed should be
so it does not follow that just because a woman had sex and got pregnant that
she is responsible for the pregnancy and so should keep the baby.

* Somebody else’s body is not more important than a person’s right to their own
body. If you consent to give a kidney to your friend you can change your mind
even if they will die after.

* If a woman is responsible for her baby and that means she cannot have an
abortion then it must also mean that she is bound to keep the baby and discount
adoption as an option. The responsibility argument would mean that adoption is
wrong.

Third, Stranger versus offspring objection. Parents have special obligations
towards their offspring (as shown, for example, by laws requiring child support
payments and by the fact that child abandonment is morally wrong). The fetus is
the pregnant woman's offspring, and so she has a special obligation to sustain
it; the violinist is a stranger and so you have no such obligation.

The objections to this are as follows:

* Special obligations do not arise from mere biological relatedness; they can
only be assumed, either explicitly or implicitly. For example, by taking the
baby home from the hospital one implicitly agrees to care for it. But one still
has the right to put ones child up for adoption after.

* Even special parental obligations do not require parents to undergo organ
donation or other direct use of their body (such as pregnancy) for the sake of
their offspring. A mother does not have to give a kidney she can spare to save
her child even if there is no other way to save him.

* From the fact that it is morally permissible for a society to enact child
support laws, it does not follow that there is any obligation (to the child) to
pay child support independently of such laws. Laws are really only human
constructs. If we lived in a world where teddy bears looked after abandoned
babies there would be no laws and no obligation to give money to one’s child.

* The wrongness of child abandonment may suggest we have some positive duties
towards others; but it would not follow that those duties are strong enough to
require sustaining the fetus.

* What do you say to the person who believes people should be valued because
they are people not because they are relations or friends? Jesus said that
anybody who loved those who loved them had done nothing to be rewarded for. If
you value your mother because she is your mother, that means if she was another
person you wouldn’t value her the same. So she is not valued because of who she
is but because of what she is. Some would argue "Letting a person like the
violinist die because they owe you nothing is evil. It implies that what matters
is not the person but what they owe you." But this is not like a woman having
her baby aborted for the baby is in her body and is not wanted there. The issue
is that the body is the woman’s. The woman is not degrading the child but
asserting her right over her body.

* If abortion is wrong, letting the violinist die is also wrong. The view that
you can hurt a stranger but not your baby doesn’t hold water. If a baby deserves
your devotion for it is related to you, how much more does a kindly adult who
isn’t related to you. Suppose the concept of deserving is correct. Strangers
have respected us at least after the manner of doing us no harm. Strangers might
save your life if you were lying dying. A person should be rewarded for what
they would do as well as what they do do. You can't condemn anybody for trying
even if they get no further than wishing. I would add that people should be
rewarded for what they are and being a person means you always have the right to
be respected. You deserve to be respected just because you are a person even if
you never did a good deed in your life. The concept of deserving according to
your good or bad deeds is a dangerous one for it suggests that you should pay
for hating by being hated. Thomson is wrong to suggest that we owe strangers no
salvation if they are hurt or dying. This tells us that the violinist IS in the
same position as a fetus. If you can abort one you can abort the other! If you
can let one die you can let the other die.

Fourth, Killing versus letting die objection. There is a morally relevant
difference between killing and letting die. Abortion typically kills the fetus
and thus is impermissible, but unplugging the violinist merely lets him die and
so is permissible. The objection would not apply to 'merely extractive' methods
of abortion (such as hysterotomy) where the fetus is extracted intact and then
allowed to die rather than killed.

The objections to this are as follows:

* So letting some lunatic blow people up is not as bad as doing it yourself?
There will still be people dead at the end of it.

* Pro-lifers do not hold that merely extractive abortions are less objectionable
than other methods of abortion; so they cannot consistently raise the killing
versus letting die objection.

* Even if killing is substantially worse than letting die, it is justified in
the case of abortion because letting die would require a merely extractive
abortion, which under current technology involves substantial risk to the
pregnant woman.

* Killing is not in and of itself worse than letting die, or is not sufficiently
worse to undermine the violinist analogy. You can let a person die and cause a
lot more trouble than you would cause if you went and killed someone. And
besides you are still intending for somebody to die in either case. Unplugging
somebody’s life support (except when they are brain dead) is as much trying to
kill them as stabbing them in the heart is. Letting a person die can make the
person suffer terribly as they die when smothered them would be kinder. Letting
a person die can make it all go wrong. Perhaps you will leave the victim
brain-damaged and the person will not die after all.

* You are guilty of murder in the legal sense when you deliberately kill
somebody. If you did not mean to do it, it is not murder. If you did mean to but
failed as far as you as a person are concerned you are a murderer in your intent
and in your heart. Letting a person die is as much murder as is shooting them to
death when the intention to cause death is there - if you are too lazy to help
your intention is: "I want that person to lose her life for I can't be bothered
helping". You are harming them by neglect for they would live otherwise and you
neglect them because you want to kill if you think it will kill them. You can't
say that it was not murder if you gave your father a mild poison to kill him
though there was a chance it would not kill him at all. You can't justly neglect
a stranger because he never got the chance to help you.

* The morality really says that the sin of killing a person is not the same as
letting die which is permitted at times. This really says that morality is about
rules irrespective of consequences. It is rule that matter not preventing harm.
It is okay to let somebody die when that would be a worse evil than killing them
outright. It is all right to leave a man cut in half on a battlefield to die
rather than for you to decapitate him to put him out of his misery. If
consequences don’t matter then executing a person for breaking the Sabbath could
conceivably be permissible.

Fifth, Intending versus foreseeing objection, There is a morally relevant
difference between intending harm and causing harm as a foreseen but unintended
side-effect.
Example, John steals from rich Amy because it is the only way he can feed sick
Charlie. The harm done to Amy is an unintended side-effect. He is not doing it
to hurt her but to help Charlie. If it were not the only way, clearly John would
have been intending to hurt Amy. If refraining from stealing is more important
than helping the sick then clearly John would have been intending to hurt Amy.

It follows then that alcoholics should not be penalised for stealing drink
because it is not done to steal but to cope with an overwhelming need for drink.

In most cases, abortion intentionally causes the fetus's death and so is
impermissible; whereas unplugging the violinist causes death as an unintended
side-effect and so is permissible.

The objections to this are as follows:

It implies that it is up to you to decide th it or not. This is an implication
that contradicts every single code of morality in existence.
Some who agree with much of the argument would say, “Thomson is right that you
have the right to refuse if somebody needs to be connected to your body by some
kind of machine to keep them alive which will mean you will not be able to move
from a bed for months. For the same reason, a mother has the right to have an
abortion. However, the earlier the abortion the better. It is clear that a woman
having an abortion four months before the birth could have waited for four
months is not that long and would be doing wrong for the life of the child is
more important than four months inconvenience.”

Here are the objections:

* You can survive being plugged up to somebody for nine months. But as a result
of your decision to unplug yourself the violinist will die. He will not survive.
Yet believers in the argument approve if you unplug yourself and inconsistently
insist that you shouldn’t have an abortion if you don’t want to be pregnant.

* The issue is the right to make your own decisions for your own body. Even if
the baby has a right to life it doesn’t follow that the mother must be compelled
to continue with the pregnancy. She may have the right to have an abortion.

* Suppose I am a woman. I am surer that I exist than that anything outside of me
exists. I am aware therefore I am. I cannot doubt that I am conscious. Therefore
my right to control my body comes first. If I get pregnant I have the right to
an abortion when I don’t want to be pregnant. I am less sure that the baby
inside me is a person than that I am or that any born child is. The nearer to
conception I go the less sure I am that the baby is a person or a person with
rights equal to mine.

* If persons are as valuable as that then it follows that it is better to be
tormented to the extreme forever and ever than to die peacefully. Those who
preach the argument don’t go that far so they don’t really believe in it.

* They say that dying people should be given pain killers that make them die
faster. They say the purpose is to make the patients more comfortable not to
kill them. But this is hypocrisy. You would be forgiven for thinking the
following. Some doctors will give the painkillers in the hope of killing the
patients to put them out of their misery and make more room in the hospital for
new patients. And others will do it to kill the pain. Some will do it for both.
It is as silly as saying that a woman hitting her child in a temper did so to
exercise her hand or to test that the child reacted normally to pain. If life is
more important than suffering then it is wrong to give the painkillers when they
will draw an impending death far closer. It is helping death along. It is
contributing to the person’s death. If that is not murder then it is not murder
to put the bullets in a gun for your friend to shoot your enemy with. Then it is
not murder if a group of boys beat a pensioner to death if you were in the group
and didn’t deliver any blows that were as deadly as those of the others. You
would still be classed as a murderer for that.

Seventh, the baby is innocent and deserves to live and so abortion is wrong.

* This ignores the fact that Thomson herself says that a baby has a right to
life but she says the baby does not have the right to take over its mother’s
body so she can have an abortion if she wishes.

* The mother is innocent too but we must remember that
pro-life people think that if she would abort whatever the reason she is not and
never will be an innocent person again even if she is forgiven by God and
everybody else.

* Judith Jarvis Thomson was convinced that abortion is permissible for the child
never did anything for the mother and so has no right to any favours from her
though she has no right to hurt it gratuitously. She is allowed to have an
abortion for it is her body but she is not allowed to torment the child
unnecessarily. Thomson argues that though a stranger is not to kill you, that
the stranger may let you die for she or he doesn't owe you anything. But she is
wrong in this. The baby never got the chance to be good to its mother to deserve
anything from her. In that sense, it does deserve. People should be blessed for
the good they might have done but never got the chance to do. You have to assume
the best of them. If you can’t kill a person when they do you a favour, then
what they did for you is more important than their right to life. If you are
that important then it is hard to see why you can’t kill them anyway.

* But though the baby might have the right to live it doesn’t follow that it
deserves to live. Murderers have the right to live but they don’t deserve to
live.

* The innocence of the fetus does not mean that the mother should let it invade
her body. The issue is that the woman owns her own body.

Some say that the baby is a part of the mother and so she can do what she
pleases with her own body. Anti-abortionists respond that this would still make
abortion evil for then it would be mutilation. But it is not mutilation any more
than cutting off a lump you deliberately grow on your arm would be. It is not an
essential part of the body so its removal does not constitute mutilation.

Conclusions

The refutations of Thomson’s position fail. The refutations being unsuccessful
don’t mean that she is right but make it likely that she is unless new
refutations can be thought of.

Nobody has the right to dogmatically oppose her argument.

Though the violinist isn’t the best example, that doesn’t mean her point is
wrong.

Let’s change it as follows.

Suppose there was a machine that could grow babies to full term. Girls are
forced to contribute eggs to it. Your egg was fertilised by mistake and now the
baby will be aborted so that another baby can be brought to full term in the
system instead. Unless your baby is implanted in you, it will die. It will die
by being pulled to bits by the machine. Is it your duty to allow this to be done
to you and save your baby’s life? What if the baby was genetically designed to
be the most compassionate doctor possible?

Thomson was right. Getting pregnant, even on purpose, doesn’t give the mother
the duty to keep the child alive. She can have an abortion if she wishes.

If you believe that an aborted baby will go to Heavenly bliss then it is obvious
that the mother was right to kill it. Letting it live would have been the
greater injustice for it might sin and lose Heaven where God will make it
morally perfect and perfectly happy.

A fetus will have an increased right to life the longer it is in the womb. It is
insulting to the fetus to say that a fetus has an equal right to life to a fetus
that is considerably less developed than it. It means that time is wasted on
saving babies that are not people yet while babies that are aborted and
shouldn’t be die. Though a woman conceivably might not have the right to take
the life of a fetus in the sixth month just because she doesn’t want to be
pregnant, she might have the right to abort if it is only say the second or
third month for the same reason or even for a trivial reason.

Even the most extreme-pro life people do not insist that frozen embryos should
be implanted in their mothers. If the baby’s life comes first then clearly this
should be done by force if necessary. This case plainly shows that Thomson was
right.

Opposition to abortion shows tremendous insolence and disregard and lack of
thought for women’s rights. Paradoxically, it is not impressive in its alleged
concern for babies at all. Roman Catholicism for instance would see a baby dying
without baptism as worse than a baby simply dying. It worries more about its
assumption that baptism is necessary than the baby’s life.

Abortion like anything can be abused. It is manipulative how most anti-abortion
people condemn it because of the abuse. But its not the fault of the
legalisation of abortion if it is abused.

Thomson was right. Getting pregnant, even on purpose,
doesn’t give the mother the duty to keep the child alive despite the child
having a right to life. She can have an abortion if she wishes.

Even if Thomson is wrong, there is enough merit in her argument to show that
abortion even if wrong and horrific cannot mean that the person having an
abortion is intending great evil. If abortion has no justification then it is
bad. If it has some but not enough its bad but not bad enough to make it illegal
or to condemn the person who has an abortion. It can be better for a surgeon to
do an operation imperfectly up to a point than for him not to perform it at all.
Same logic!